Why make a post? You don't even have anything to talk about! Good grief. And what does "childs" even mean? Were you in such a hurry to be the first person to post "breaking news ZOMG!" without even an article or so much as an OPINION, even, that you didn't have time to even have your title make grammatical sense??

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday refused to let California regulate the sale or rental of violent video games to children, saying governments do not have the power to "restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed" despite complaints about graphic violence.
On a 7-2 vote, the high court upheld a federal appeals court decision to throw out the state's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento had ruled that the law violated minors' rights under the First Amendment, and the high court agreed.
"No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion. "But that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed."
The California law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. Retailers who violated the act would have been fined up to $1,000 for each infraction.
More than 46 million American households have at least one video-game system, with the industry bringing in at least $18 billion in 2010.
Unlike depictions of "sexual conduct," Scalia said there is no tradition in the United States of restricting children's access to depictions of violence, pointing out the violence in the original depiction of many popular children's fairy tales like Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella and Snow White.
Hansel and Gretel kill their captor by baking her in an oven, Cinderella's evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves and the evil queen in Snow White is forced to wear red hot slippers and dance until she is dead, Scalia said.
"Certainly the books we give children to read — or read to them when they are younger — contain no shortage of gore," Scalia added.
But Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented from the decision along with Justice Stephen Breyer, said the majority read something into the First Amendment that isn't there.
"The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that "the freedom of speech," as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians," Thomas wrote.

"No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion. "But that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed."

Don't we have the ESRB for this? I mean, you can't get into an R rated movie, but you can buy an M game?

I also think its the parent's responsibility to not be morons.

Until California tries to criminalize it... That's what Hannibal was saying -- if you're going to try, why not try to get cash from theaters, too?

Too late for that now, though.

I don't really care about this one way or the other. If/when I was/am a parent I would/will be the final arbitrator of content appropriateness.

At the same time I have a hard time feeling as if Cali was putting huge unprecedented restrictions on commerce. As mus pointed out, ratings based censorship is nothing new.

Making it a criminal offense removes you as the final arbitor, however. It gives the government the job you want.

I just can't bring myself to feel It's time to raid sacromento or call for the resignation (or worse) of justices if this was upheld.

Political winds change all the time. Once upon a time laws limiting human slavery were found to be unconstitutional. I think it's a bit extreme to hold politicians accountable for life and limb or even money for something so fickle. Term limits is a far better solution.

Political winds change all the time. Once upon a time laws limiting human slavery were found to be unconstitutional. I think it's a bit extreme to hold politicians accountable for life and limb or even money for something so fickle. Term limits is a far better solution.